Rancho Quervo - After weeks of pouring over several maps of
Iraq and countless "Find Waldo" books, President Select
George "Jar Jar" Bush appealed to the nation to help him
find the mythical Weapons of Mass Destruction which he and
the Administration used to justify a hasty invasion earlier
this year.
In his quest, Bush has turned to some unlikely allies. Aides
say that the President contacted the Teamsters Union to draw
on their experience in locating former boss, Jimmy Hoffa.
And on the west coast, political operatives interviewed O.J.
Simpson about his well-known campaign to find the "real"
killer of his wife and her boyfriend.
Unconfirmed sources indicate that the Justice Department may
be working out a deal with former analyst of the now defunct
accounting firm, Arthur Anderson, for their renowned ability
to find "profits" where none previously existed.
Pundits, however, are skeptical of this latest venture to
shore up Bush's flagging credibility. According to one
unnamed Senator from New York, "That moron [Bush] couldn't
find his own ass with both hands tied behind his back!
(Vote for me in 2004!)"
"LarryG" <gilstrap@no-spam> wrote in message
news:ZeCcnf19g_uDZWSjXTWcrg@no-spam
> Rancho Quervo - After weeks of pouring over several maps of
> Iraq and countless "Find Waldo" books, President Select
> George "Jar Jar" Bush appealed to the nation to help him
> find the mythical Weapons of Mass Destruction which he and
> the Administration used to justify a hasty invasion earlier
> this year.
>
> In his quest, Bush has turned to some unlikely allies. Aides
> say that the President contacted the Teamsters Union to draw
> on their experience in locating former boss, Jimmy Hoffa.
> And on the west coast, political operatives interviewed O.J.
> Simpson about his well-known campaign to find the "real"
> killer of his wife and her boyfriend.
>
> Unconfirmed sources indicate that the Justice Department may
> be working out a deal with former analyst of the now defunct
> accounting firm, Arthur Anderson, for their renowned ability
> to find "profits" where none previously existed.
>
> Pundits, however, are skeptical of this latest venture to
> shore up Bush's flagging credibility. According to one
> unnamed Senator from New York, "That moron [Bush] couldn't
> find his own ass with both hands tied behind his back!
> (Vote for me in 2004!)"
>
>
If the amount of money that Bush has already amassed for his 2004 run
doesn't convince you that he's been bought and sold by big business, I don't
know what will.
Jason wrote:
> "LarryG" <gilstrap@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:ZeCcnf19g_uDZWSjXTWcrg@no-spam
>> Rancho Quervo - After weeks of pouring over several maps of
>> Iraq and countless "Find Waldo" books, President Select
>> George "Jar Jar" Bush appealed to the nation to help him
>> find the mythical Weapons of Mass Destruction which he and
>> the Administration used to justify a hasty invasion earlier
>> this year.
>>
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/index.html
>
> This is mythical? Boy alot of people are gonna be eating crow over
> this one.
Especially the imbeciles too stupid to comprehend the frickin' second
HEADLINE:
"U.S. officials: Find is not smoking gun"
Sheesh.
Cheers,
Dusty
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:30:16 -0500, "Jason" <none@no-spam> wrote:
>
>"LarryG" <gilstrap@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:ZeCcnf19g_uDZWSjXTWcrg@no-spam
>> Rancho Quervo - After weeks of pouring over several maps of
>> Iraq and countless "Find Waldo" books, President Select
>> George "Jar Jar" Bush appealed to the nation to help him
>> find the mythical Weapons of Mass Destruction which he and
>> the Administration used to justify a hasty invasion earlier
>> this year.
>>
>
>http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/index.html
>
>This is mythical? Boy alot of people are gonna be eating crow over this
>one.
>
Not exactly news, since no one said Saddam *never* had WMD.
What was said was that Saddam possessed WMD recently that included
tons of chemical agents and other toxins. He was also said to have
possessed an active or near active nuclear program.
Rusty, obsolete parts buried in a back yard don't strike me as
anywhere close to active.
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:25:58 -0500, "Jason" <none@no-spam> wrote:
>"mh" <mh.anti.spam.obratschk@no-spam> wrote in
>message news:79ckfvodvuuc18f7ltevno8tjo9s7n0eis@no-spam
>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:30:16 -0500, "Jason" <none@no-spam> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"LarryG" <gilstrap@no-spam> wrote in message
>> >news:ZeCcnf19g_uDZWSjXTWcrg@no-spam
>> >> Rancho Quervo - After weeks of pouring over several maps of
>> >> Iraq and countless "Find Waldo" books, President Select
>> >> George "Jar Jar" Bush appealed to the nation to help him
>> >> find the mythical Weapons of Mass Destruction which he and
>> >> the Administration used to justify a hasty invasion earlier
>> >> this year.
>> >>
>> >
>> >http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/index.html
>> >
>> >This is mythical? Boy alot of people are gonna be eating crow over this
>> >one.
>> >
>>
>> Not exactly news, since no one said Saddam *never* had WMD.
>>
>> What was said was that Saddam possessed WMD recently that included
>> tons of chemical agents and other toxins. He was also said to have
>> possessed an active or near active nuclear program.
>>
>> Rusty, obsolete parts buried in a back yard don't strike me as
>> anywhere close to active.
>>
>>
>
>It didnt look like a rusty obsolete part to me, but none the less, the fact
>that something like this HAS been hidden, don't you think its very possible,
>and very likely that there are other parts as well?
>
>Don't get me wrong, I am not a Bush supporter, I didnt vote for him, and
>doubt I will next election. But alot of you people are giving Saddam and
>the Iraquis more credit than they deserve. Saddam was an evil SOB and I
>feel very certain that within several years he would have attacked innocent
>people (i.e. us) with WMD.
>
But you are begging the question! All you say is probably pretty
close to the reality of the thing. The question is 'Did Bush et al
LIE about the existence of those WMDs in the here and now, and was
Iraq a threat to our security in the immediate future?'.
You see nearly two hundred US and Brit soldiers have died because
Congress the UN, and the US public(State of the Union address), that
Iraq HAD those meapons and were an immediate threat to the US and the
world. This got theem the Congressional resolution that allowed the
pre-emptive invasion.
If those WMDs did NOT in fact exist then Iraq was NOT an immediate
threat to anyone, and the Congress was LIED to.
That can be considered serious, even by the likes of Cheney and Rove,
amybe even Rumsfeld though that is unlikely.
The rush to invade Iraq was done with (apparently) no or very little
planning on how to handle the situation AFTER the army was defeated
and Sadaam gone. There were warnings from the likes of Gen. Shinseki,
the General of the Army, that it would take hundreds of thousands of
troops to maintain the peace sufficiently long to install a
democratically elected government. He was publicly chastised and
contradicted in no uncertain terms by Rumsfeld immediately. However
today we and the Brits combined are nearing 200,000 with more on the
way and the Generals and lower field commanders saying they are
critically short of men and materiel.
The longer this condition exists the more soldiers will be killed and
the less likely a sound peace will ever be accomplished. Proper
planning would have moved the invasion back a year, so what, we had
inspectors on the ground, we had the air space completely locked up,
where was the urgency? WHY was the urgency? Why pull out of
Afghanistan leaving one lone division the 82d Airborn to try and hold
the mess together, and WHY abandon the search and destruction of Osama
bin Laden when everybody agreed he was in Northwest Pakistan?
THAT is the question and the situation. NOT whether Sadaam was a bad
man.
-=Monte=-
The solution is simple, send pretzels to the Whitehouse!
"Monte" <SendGeeDumbya@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3efa6c44.91681328@no-spam
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:25:58 -0500, "Jason" <none@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >"mh" <mh.anti.spam.obratschk@no-spam> wrote in
> >message news:79ckfvodvuuc18f7ltevno8tjo9s7n0eis@no-spam
> >> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:30:16 -0500, "Jason" <none@no-spam> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"LarryG" <gilstrap@no-spam> wrote in message
> >> >news:ZeCcnf19g_uDZWSjXTWcrg@no-spam
> >> >> Rancho Quervo - After weeks of pouring over several maps of
> >> >> Iraq and countless "Find Waldo" books, President Select
> >> >> George "Jar Jar" Bush appealed to the nation to help him
> >> >> find the mythical Weapons of Mass Destruction which he and
> >> >> the Administration used to justify a hasty invasion earlier
> >> >> this year.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
>http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/index.html
> >> >
> >> >This is mythical? Boy alot of people are gonna be eating crow over
this
> >> >one.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Not exactly news, since no one said Saddam *never* had WMD.
> >>
> >> What was said was that Saddam possessed WMD recently that included
> >> tons of chemical agents and other toxins. He was also said to have
> >> possessed an active or near active nuclear program.
> >>
> >> Rusty, obsolete parts buried in a back yard don't strike me as
> >> anywhere close to active.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >It didnt look like a rusty obsolete part to me, but none the less, the
fact
> >that something like this HAS been hidden, don't you think its very
possible,
> >and very likely that there are other parts as well?
> >
> >Don't get me wrong, I am not a Bush supporter, I didnt vote for him, and
> >doubt I will next election. But alot of you people are giving Saddam and
> >the Iraquis more credit than they deserve. Saddam was an evil SOB and I
> >feel very certain that within several years he would have attacked
innocent
> >people (i.e. us) with WMD.
> >
>
> But you are begging the question! All you say is probably pretty
> close to the reality of the thing. The question is 'Did Bush et al
> LIE about the existence of those WMDs in the here and now, and was
> Iraq a threat to our security in the immediate future?'.
>
> You see nearly two hundred US and Brit soldiers have died because
> Congress the UN, and the US public(State of the Union address), that
> Iraq HAD those meapons and were an immediate threat to the US and the
> world. This got theem the Congressional resolution that allowed the
> pre-emptive invasion.
>
> If those WMDs did NOT in fact exist then Iraq was NOT an immediate
> threat to anyone, and the Congress was LIED to.
>
> That can be considered serious, even by the likes of Cheney and Rove,
> amybe even Rumsfeld though that is unlikely.
>
> The rush to invade Iraq was done with (apparently) no or very little
> planning on how to handle the situation AFTER the army was defeated
> and Sadaam gone. There were warnings from the likes of Gen. Shinseki,
> the General of the Army, that it would take hundreds of thousands of
> troops to maintain the peace sufficiently long to install a
> democratically elected government. He was publicly chastised and
> contradicted in no uncertain terms by Rumsfeld immediately. However
> today we and the Brits combined are nearing 200,000 with more on the
> way and the Generals and lower field commanders saying they are
> critically short of men and materiel.
>
> The longer this condition exists the more soldiers will be killed and
> the less likely a sound peace will ever be accomplished. Proper
> planning would have moved the invasion back a year, so what, we had
> inspectors on the ground, we had the air space completely locked up,
> where was the urgency? WHY was the urgency? Why pull out of
> Afghanistan leaving one lone division the 82d Airborn to try and hold
> the mess together, and WHY abandon the search and destruction of Osama
> bin Laden when everybody agreed he was in Northwest Pakistan?
>
> THAT is the question and the situation. NOT whether Sadaam was a bad
> man.
>
>
> -=Monte=-
> The solution is simple, send pretzels to the Whitehouse!
I agree with your perception of the current situation. I don't like leaving
our men there, but, seeing as there are some weapons that can be used
against us, someone has to monitor that country.
Until a reasonable govt has been established BY the IRAQIS, we still are not
safe.
But my earlier point was that there would have eventually been an attack,
and lots more innocents would have been killed. It happend on 9/11, people
seem to ignore that.
Did GW have immediate proof if WMD in Iraq? I don't know. There is alot of
classified info that we don't know because of its importance. Even if he
didn't, I still believe (and now we have proof leading to this conclusion)
that there are (or would soon have been) WMD in Iraq. GW's motives and
methods aside, Saddam STILL had to go down.
Jason wrote:
> I agree with your perception of the current situation. I don't like leaving
> our men there, but, seeing as there are some weapons that can be used
> against us, someone has to monitor that country.
>
> Until a reasonable govt has been established BY the IRAQIS, we still are not
> safe.
Reality check. Noone on this planet will ever be safe. You are not any
safer now than you were before the invasion of Iraq. You are likely to
be even less safe now.
>
> But my earlier point was that there would have eventually been an attack,
> and lots more innocents would have been killed. It happend on 9/11, people
> seem to ignore that.
What makes you so sure about that? Saddam might have SUPPORTED terrorists
attacking the USA, but he was not nearly in the position to threaten the
USA. The invasion changed nothing, as far as the safety of the USA and its
people are concerned. Hm, maybe it even increased the danger by increasing
the HATE in the Arab world. It changed a lot of other things, some in a
positive and some in a negative way. If the balance is on the positive or
negative side, is an open question? Time will tell.
>
> Did GW have immediate proof if WMD in Iraq? I don't know. There is alot of
> classified info that we don't know because of its importance. Even if he
> didn't, I still believe (and now we have proof leading to this conclusion)
> that there are (or would soon have been) WMD in Iraq. GW's motives and
> methods aside, Saddam STILL had to go down.
>
I agree with you, that Saddam had to go down. Not because he really threatened
the USA, but because of his own people. Ironically, Bush may have done the
right thing for the wrong reasons. And the final result may also not as he
desires. Well, look, what IS the situation after the strikes on Afghanistan
and Iraq? Afghanistan is controlled by local warlords, besides Kabul maybe.
There is NO safety whatsoever outside of Kabul. To invade Iraq, the US had
to remove a big part of their troops from Afghanistan. The rest of them will
have a hard time controling Kabul, let alone finding bin Laden. To control
Iraq, hundreds of thousands of soldiers will have to be there for a long time.
Face it, whenever the US troops leave the country, either an islamic state
will pop up or you have to install another dictator, just as cruel and
dangerous as Saddam.
You cannot just go in there, say "Hello, here we are, you are now free.
Free to build a democracy that suits us. Free to sell your oil to us
cheap. Free to live an american way of life." It doesn't work like that.
If the Iraqis aren't convinced by your ideas, those ideas will not work.
They grew up in a totally different culture. As a consequence, their
thinking is very different from yours (and mine). What you may think as
the best idea since sliced bread, may be unthinkable for them. Searching
their houses for weapons and thereby intruding in the womens rooms will
certainly not make them your friends. For them, this alone is a reason to
hate and even kill you, as the Brits just learned the hard way. This has
nothing to do with terrorism or hate against the West. It's what YOU
would do if THEY spit in your face and raped your woman.
That all aside, the fact remains, that Bush LIED to the Congress to get
the support for the inavsion of Iraq. And that IS a serious thing.
Well, maybe he didn't know any better, maybe he was told there were
actual proof for WMD in Iraq. But someone MUST have known these proofs
didn't hold any water. And those persons, be it Bush or some of his staff,
should get what they deserve: a kick in their butt. But I'll tell you what
will happen: Eventually, they will *find* some WMD. If not by searching,
then by installing them. Of course, noone with a brain will believe them,
even if they really find something. The UN inspectors offered to assist
in the search just because of that one reason, to give them credibility.
Well, the offer was refused. Go figure.
Thomas Bantel
"Jason" <none@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bdg7o5$7d7$1@no-spam
> Thank you Thomas for a good, logical, polite rebuttal. Some of us could
> really learn from posters like yourself. I don't exactly agree eye to eye
> with you on all your points, but on many of them I do.
>
> I tire of this argument though, I don't suspect I can have any direct
> influence on the outcome, so I will leave it at this.
>
> In the meantime, I'm crossing my fingers things get better.
"All that is required for evil to triumph, is for good men to
[stand around and] do nothing."
- ???
I forget who said this, but its been a favorite quote for year.
Cheers,
Larry G.
"LarryG" <gilstrap@no-spam> wrote in message
news:i0GdnQJ8hf1cN2ajXTWcrg@no-spam
> "Jason" <none@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:bdg7o5$7d7$1@no-spam
> > Thank you Thomas for a good, logical, polite rebuttal. Some of us could
> > really learn from posters like yourself. I don't exactly agree eye to
eye
> > with you on all your points, but on many of them I do.
> >
> > I tire of this argument though, I don't suspect I can have any direct
> > influence on the outcome, so I will leave it at this.
> >
> > In the meantime, I'm crossing my fingers things get better.
>
>
> "All that is required for evil to triumph, is for good men to
> [stand around and] do nothing."
> - ???
>
> I forget who said this, but its been a favorite quote for year.
>
> Cheers,
> Larry G.
>
>
LOL nice one. True, well.. I actually do a small service for our country,
but right now I don't plan on doing anything like searching for WMDs in
Iraq, hehe.